Page 81 of 90 FirstFirst ... 3171777879808182838485 ... LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,215 of 1350
  1. #1201
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    27,306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevinroc View Post
    We just saw what happened when they don't do that. I don't understand this opinion after Amazing Spider-Man 2.
    I don't understand how anyone thinks MJ's absence is a problem for the movies. MJ not being in ASM is completely orthogonal to how well or poorly Gwen's story was handled. MJ being present wouldn't fix any perceived issues people would have had with Peter and Gwen's relationship. In fact, the primary reason why Gwen's death was so controversial in the films was because people liked Gwen so much. How does MJ being in these movies fix any of these problems?

    And again, I like MJ but this just feels like putting her on a pedestal she does not belong on.
    Last edited by Agent Z; 02-24-2021 at 12:09 AM.

  2. #1202
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    I don't understand how anyone thinks MJ's absence is a problem for the movies. MJ not being in ASM is completely orthogonal to how well or poorly Gwen's story was handled. MJ being present wouldn't fix any perceived issues people would have had with Peter and Gwen's relationship. In fact, the primary reason why Gwen's death was so controversial in the films was because people liked Gwen so much. How does MJ being in these movies fix any of these problems?

    And again, I like MJ but this just feels like putting her on a pedestal she does not belong on.
    Gwen's death is just as important for MJ's development as it is for Peter's. Pre-Gwen's death, Peter thought MJ was a flake who didn't care about anyone except herself. If a third movie had come out, she would have been seen as a poor substitute who didn't measure up to Stone's Gwen. (And given how they bungled everything else in those films, it doesn't seem too out of line to think they would have bungled MJ's introduction into the narrative.)

  3. #1203
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    I don't understand how anyone thinks MJ's absence is a problem for the movies. MJ not being in ASM is completely orthogonal to how well or poorly Gwen's story was handled. MJ being present wouldn't fix any perceived issues people would have had with Peter and Gwen's relationship. In fact, the primary reason why Gwen's death was so controversial in the films was because people liked Gwen so much. How does MJ being in these movies fix any of these problems?

    And again, I like MJ but this just feels like putting her on a pedestal she does not belong on.
    In TASM's interpretation of the Death of the Stacys, Gwen is a co-lead and central to the story. In the comics, Gwen's character was peripheral, and the point of TNGSD wasn't that Peter was losing this great fulfilling love. It was specifically designed by its creator to be a turning point in the relationship between Peter and Mary Jane. But Webb and Co. interpreted the Death of Gwen as being akin to Romeo and Juliet. This isn't just my interpretation based on clues...they are quite literally on record saying as much. And changes made to the story such as Captain Stacy's disapproval of Peter are clearly meant to be evocative of that.

    The problem with this interpretation (again irrespective of its completely missing the point) is that Romeo and Juliet doesn't end with Romeo moving on with his life to find his great love and achieve happiness. Both Romeo and Juliet are consumed by their love and die tragically. And by building up Gwen to be Peter's Juliet... to such a degree both with the casting of Emma Stone and story-wise (having her function as Spider-man's sidekick, his first love, his intellectual equal, his only true friend, etc), they eviscerated the central driving element of their story the moment they killed her off. The fact that Garfield and Stone's chemistry was the only thing that had been consistently praised about these movies just made matters worse.

    I'm actually of the opinion that having MJ exist throughout the trilogy was not a necessity for the story to function (though I would have preferred it and it would have been more true to the comics). But what they needed to do for the transition to work effectively was to shift some of the focus off of Gwen, and MJ's presence would have done that. At the very least, MJ's presence would have created an emotional undercurrent that the audience could latch onto for the duration of the trilogy. Interestingly enough, Gerry Conway actually commented on this in an interview he gave after the movie came out.
    Last edited by Spider-Tiger; 02-24-2021 at 07:23 AM.

  4. #1204
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    You are correct in that this is indeed my contention about the franchise.

    But the writers, director, cast, and Garfield Peter absolutely saw Gwen that way. They said many times in interviews that Gwen was more compatible to Peter, and so on. That might be promotional stuff to boost their movies and so on, and there's an element of that, but either way they wanted the audience to know that this is how Gwen should be seen in their movies and presented her that way.



    They don't have to literally say that in dialogue but an entire history of romantic comedy and performance recognition created recognizable codes that audience instinctively recognize right away. The movies traffick in that so it's rather obvious. The presentation of the movie, the coding of the scenes and performances, the framing and staging of scenes, beats the spoken text of the movie, always always always (to quote Lindsay Ellis).

    The problem is that the way Emma Stone was played up in the first two movies, no way any actress cast as Mary Jane in the third movie will register as anything other than a lesser character. And short of going SPIDER-MAN REIGN there is not any way to bring that Peter out of the hole the movies dump him in at the end of that.
    It's been a while since the ASM1&2 production days, but the only one I recall saying Gwen was more compatible to Peter was Emma Stone on SNL in a joking way. Garfield especially doesn't strike me as the type to say that given what a personal connection he had to Spider-Man and to comics. I can imagine a lot of the empty suits at Sony saying that (especially as promotion for the film), but I'm not sure if that's reliable evidence if we look at the actual films.

    If we look at the actual films, I see none of the signs that audiences have been trained to recognize as a character being "the one" or "meant to be". By comparison, Raimi deliberately started out his franchise with the line "This story is about a girl" and at least his first two films are played up as a bit mythological in tone and directing. All of that was done to intentionally signal to the audience that MJ is "the one" and "meant to be", as I'm sure you already know. The Webb films on the other hand never introduce Gwen like that nor is it something you can infer from the tone of the films (the films come off like standard superhero action flicks.). They furthermore don't even use additional tropes that audiences are meant to associate with a couple being "meant to be", like the Missed Him by That Much trope that was used in the Lee/Ditko comics with MJ (don't have time to include the link but there is a whole page about it on TvTropes). Another thing stories with a "meant to be" subtext will do is include additional love foils for each of the two partners to further drive the point home that a couple is 'meant to be' . That's why Dunst's MJ dated Harry and John Jameson for a while before getting with Peter, and why Peter had a fling with Gwen for a while before reuniting with MJ. Peter dates Betty and (almost) Liz for a while in the Ditko comics before he meets MJ for that same reason. The Webb films could have included a foil for Peter and Gwen to further drive home that point, but they didn't.

    Probably the closest sign the films gave to Peter and Gwen being "meant to be", or that Peter will never find anyone as compatible with him, is the ending in ASM1 where Peter breaks the promise to be with her. But even that hinted to audiences that it would lead to consequences.

    So other than that, unless we count two characters simply being in love and being compatible as evidence of the film implying they're meant to be (which I don't think is enough - by that standard every non-toxic couple in every piece of fiction was 'meant to be'), I don't think we can say that the films gave off those vibes or that they even intended to.

    I mean, studio-wise we know they didn't intend to since they were gonna cast Shailene Woodley as MJ for future films and planned at least two more films had it not been for the franchise's flop. Even after ASM2's performance, at one point the leaked emails were discussing potentially doing a timeskip and having Garfield's Spider-Man be a teacher (essentially JMS Spider-Man). For all of Sony's faults, keeping Peter mourning over Gwen long-term and not letting him move on didn't ever seem to be in the cards (Thank God). Would Emma Stone's performance have been hard to top? Yes. But I think that's a different argument from what the films were trying/not trying to do with Gwen.
    Last edited by Kaitou D. Kid; 02-24-2021 at 08:16 AM.

  5. #1205
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    27,306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevinroc View Post
    Gwen's death is just as important for MJ's development as it is for Peter's. Pre-Gwen's death, Peter thought MJ was a flake who didn't care about anyone except herself. If a third movie had come out, she would have been seen as a poor substitute who didn't measure up to Stone's Gwen. (And given how they bungled everything else in those films, it doesn't seem too out of line to think they would have bungled MJ's introduction into the narrative.)
    There are plenty of avenues to explore MJ's character development. The Raimi movies showed her kindness without needing to establish Gwen first let alone kill her off.

  6. #1206
    Incredible Member ermac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    560

    Default

    Controversial opinion: Jill Stacy was a great character

  7. #1207
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    2,833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ermac View Post
    Controversial opinion: Jill Stacy was a great character
    I liked her brother and father better. That being said, it was great to see MJ interact with someone other than Peter.

  8. #1208
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    There are plenty of avenues to explore MJ's character development. The Raimi movies showed her kindness without needing to establish Gwen first let alone kill her off.
    This is why people were saying you can do MJ without Gwen, but you can't do Gwen without MJ.

    Quote Originally Posted by ermac View Post
    Controversial opinion: Jill Stacy was a great character
    She had potential. And it was nice to see MJ having a friend of her own.

  9. #1209
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    It's been a while since the ASM1&2 production days, but the only one I recall saying Gwen was more compatible to Peter was Emma Stone on SNL in a joking way. Garfield especially doesn't strike me as the type to say that given what a personal connection he had to Spider-Man and to comics. I can imagine a lot of the empty suits at Sony saying that (especially as promotion for the film), but I'm not sure if that's reliable evidence if we look at the actual films.

    I'm paraphrasing, but the director, Marc Webb, said something to the effect of Gwen loves Peter, and Mary Jane was always after Spider-man, and Gwen is Peter's intellectual equal in contrast to Mary Jane during promotion of the films. Perhaps Webb was being overzealous, but I have little faith in terms of how they would later approach MJ.

    TBF, I think the design of Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy was entirely reactionary and based off of criticism to Dunst's Mary Jane. So Gwen is a damsel out of distress and sidekick instead of a damsel, she's accepting instead of "nagging", and she doesn't have any romantic foils like Dunst's MJ because she's entirely into Peter. She's the idealized romantic interest.

    Were they designed to be "meant to be"? Clearly not. The design from the get-go was for Peter and Gwen to be "star-crossed lovers" (they could be great together...if only fate and circumstance had not kept them apart) and Gwen serving as Spider-man's sidekick, her acceptance to Oxford, and the ghost of Captain Stacy looming over their relationship all plays into that. The idealization of Gwen Stacy and her relationship with Peter was clearly an attempt to heighten the tragedy of her death, but it was done whilst throwing Mary Jane (or any future relationship prospects) under the bus. They removed MJ's character arc from the story, talked about how Gwen was superior to MJ in promo, idealized Gwen and Peter's romance, and essentially had Gwen supplant MJ as Peter's confidante.

    So again, I have a hard time imagining MJ coming across well or anywhere near as significant in future films because it would have required them to backtrack on the narrative that had already been established for two films. (And that is excluding Emma Stone's performance and the chemistry she had with Andrew.)
    Last edited by Spider-Tiger; 02-24-2021 at 11:19 AM.

  10. #1210
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    2,833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevinroc View Post
    This is why people were saying you can do MJ without Gwen, but you can't do Gwen without MJ.
    Why are we assuming that we have to kill Gwen at all. Even Weisman wasn't planning on doing that.

  11. #1211
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    7,969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider-Tiger View Post
    The problem with this interpretation (again irrespective of its completely missing the point) is that Romeo and Juliet doesn't end with Romeo moving on with his life to find his great love and achieve happiness.
    Perfectly stated. For TASM-2 to work as a romantic tragedy, Peter had to die, i.e. that version of Peter. The only logical extension for Peter after that is to go all SPIDER-MAN REIGN.

    I'm actually of the opinion that having MJ exist throughout the trilogy was not a necessity for the story to function (though I would have preferred it and it would have been more true to the comics). But what they needed to do for the transition to work effectively was to shift some of the focus off of Gwen, and MJ's presence would have done that.
    That's how Spider-Man: Blue worked as well. Although it's a nostalgia piece between Peter and Gwen, Mary Jane's importance both in the past and the present is crucial for the entire story, and she gets the last word in at the end.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider-Tiger View Post
    So again, I have a hard time imagining MJ coming across well or anywhere near as significant in future films because it would have required them to backtrack on the narrative that had already been established for two films. (And that is excluding Emma Stone's performance and the chemistry she had with Andrew.)
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    By comparison, Raimi deliberately started out his franchise with the line "This story is about a girl" and at least his first two films are played up as a bit mythological in tone and directing. All of that was done to intentionally signal to the audience that MJ is "the one" and "meant to be", as I'm sure you already know.
    The Raimi movies are absolutely a romantic love story and the screenwriters and Raimi all felt that it would work that way. No arguments about that.

    The Webb films on the other hand never introduce Gwen like that nor is it something you can infer from the tone of the films (the films come off like standard superhero action flicks.).
    We first meet Gwen at the science fair where she's presented as this senior smart lady, and Peter's a weirdo, later she's framed as the popular girl and he's the weirdo and of course you have the class element of Gwen living it up in Manhattan and Peter being from Queens (which is the only element from 616 they retained, Gwen is the only girl from a upper class that Peter ever dated). That's basically Billy Joel's "Uptown Girl".

  12. #1212
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    64,493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PCN24454 View Post
    Why are we assuming that we have to kill Gwen at all. Even Weisman wasn't planning on doing that.
    For high school at least.

  13. #1213
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PCN24454 View Post
    Why are we assuming that we have to kill Gwen at all. Even Weisman wasn't planning on doing that.
    If you read between the lines, Weisman was absolutely planning on killing Gwen one day. Just not while they were all in High School.

  14. #1214
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    We first meet Gwen at the science fair where she's presented as this senior smart lady, and Peter's a weirdo, later she's framed as the popular girl and he's the weirdo and of course you have the class element of Gwen living it up in Manhattan and Peter being from Queens (which is the only element from 616 they retained, Gwen is the only girl from a upper class that Peter ever dated). That's basically Billy Joel's "Uptown Girl".
    A character being implied as "the one" or "meant to be" are very specific things and a story requires more than what's in the quoted post to communicate it. As an example, a film like La La Land (also starring Emma Stone) flirts with those ideas and that imagery significantly more than ASM1&2 do, but the film still ends with each partner moving on and being happy.

  15. #1215
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    7,969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    A character being implied as "the one" or "meant to be" are very specific things and a story requires more than what's in the quoted post to communicate it. As an example, a film like La La Land (also starring Emma Stone) flirts with those ideas and that imagery significantly more than ASM1&2 do, but the film still ends with each partner moving on and being happy.
    That movie is a deconstruction of romance and not bound by genre in the same way, so obviously it plays differently

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •